Poll: The best argument against God, capital G.

[dybmh]

@dybmh This is another argument that i dont see your list. It's not a good argument but it is an argument. That is the relatability of a deity. Oftentimes wanting a relationship with a deity is a reason to honor them. In abrahamic religions their God is perfect. Super powerful unable to make mistakes. I don't want to work with a god like that. I can't relate to them. With pagan gods or luciferian ones you can relate to them. They are flawed. As flawed as humans but on a bigger scale cuz of how powerful they are. And i can see an argument for why worship something that's flawed but for me that's easier then worshiping a perfect being. I can also see an argument for ways you can relate on other levels to an abrahamic God.

The topic is, what is the best argument against. The single best. I actually think this is a good reason, but unless it is the best, I'm not looking for those possible answers.

But thank you.

 

[Zwing]

There are over 3.5 billion Abrahamic God believers and i would think there are close to that number different beliefs of what the Abrahamic God is.

That’s not true. Almost all Christians that I know have the same basic conception of God the Father as immaterial (spirit), transcendent, immanent, and of course omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and naturally of the Godhead as tripartite.

 

[dybmh]

My belief is more than a tiny minority.

In spite of the few who are adherents to a literal fleshy-god. The Christian bible says that God is spirit. So, any of those who hold to that god concept are probably not relevant to this thread because that is not how God is described in the bible.

If you had to choose one, and only one, argument against the God of Abraham as described in the Bible ( both Hebrew and Christian )

 

[ChristineM]

That’s not true. Almost all Christians that I know have the same basic conception of God the Father as immaterial (spirit), transcendent, immanent, and of course omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and naturally of the Godhead as tripartite.

And, and, and, not just basic but the entire belief

Hence the reason there is no coherent, universal definition of god

On these pages there are several discussions/debates over the tripartite theme

 

[dybmh]

Certainly judging by comments on these pages it is a good percentage.

Really? I didn't see that anywhere. The majority of responses are "there is no evidence". Which describes something immaterial.

 

[ChristineM]

Really? I didn't see that anywhere. The majority of responses are "there is no evidence". Which describes something immaterial.

Or deliberately hiding

 

[dybmh]

No it doesn't. What is a non physical thing?

a debt or a contradiction

 

[dybmh]

Or deliberately hiding

that's not necessarily physical, but even I grant that it's 1 post from 1 person.

Certainly judging by comments on these pages it is a good percentage.

A good percentage doesn't come from 1 post. Any others?

 

[Zwing]

That’s not true. Almost all Christians that I know have the same basic conception of God the Father as immaterial (spirit), transcendent, immanent, and of course omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, and naturally of the Godhead as tripartite.

In fact, it was one of these, the insistence upon God’s immanence, which provided the initial crack in the edifice of my own theism.

 

[Koldo]

Energy would in effect be the physical expression of "God's will".

Regarding the "no evidence" comment for a transcendent creator God, the evidence is the logical necessity for it. A necessity that has been recognized by all human cultures in all times and places.

What logical necessity?

 

[PureX]

What logical necessity?

That existence as we experience it cannot logically be responsible for manifesting itself. Almost no humans anywhere at any time have ever posed the possibility that it could have. And even those few that do, today, can't offer any logical or practical mechanism by which such a thing could occur.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That existence as we experience it cannot logically be responsible for manifesting itself. Almost no humans anywhere at any time have ever posed the possibility that it could have. And even those few that do, today, can't offer any logical or practical mechanism by which such a thing could occur.

Can you explain that?

 

[Ostronomos]

This begs the question that mind=brain, which is precisely what would need to be proved on the materialist view. Perhaps I'll start a thread on this today or tomorrow.

Mind can expand outwardly from brain but it is not localized to brain. Skull is the perceived illusory barrier.

 

[Ostronomos]

Will you translate that into English, please? I have no idea what you mean. What is a “dimension”, and how does one meet God “half way”? Half way to what, exactly? Your post sounds vaguely like one of the type of nonsensical comments that Christian preachers will make in order to generate positive emotions in the congregation.

I am referring to none other than the dimension of mind. Where mind expands outwardly from brain and becomes non-localized. In Quantum mechanical terms. It was not my intention to appear as if I was appealing to authority. By gaining extrasensory perception or the sixth sense it allows one to "meet God half way".

 

[ChristineM]

a debt or a contradiction

Not a god then

 

[Koldo]

That existence as we experience it cannot logically be responsible for manifesting itself.

Big bang?

Almost no humans anywhere at any time have ever posed the possibility that it could have. And even those few that do, today, can't offer any practical mechanism by which such a thing could occur.

Where is the practical mechanism in saying that God did it? It doesn't answer "how".

 

[ChristineM]

that's not necessarily physical, but even I grant that it's 1 post from 1 person.

.
Eh? God posts on RF?

A good percentage doesn't come from 1 post. Any others?

Sorry, i am not seatching back though thousands of threads but, yes, several times i have seem argument over god being physical or not

 

[PureX]

Can you explain that?

For what we call "existence" to have occurred it had to be possible for it to occur. And for it to occur in the way that it has, there must have also been limitations to what was possible, or only abject chaos could have resulted. For existence to be ordered, as it is, it had to be the result of both possibility and limitation (impossibility). And these would logically have to precede the occurrence of the existential event: to have allowed it, and to have determined it. Thus, existence as we know of and define it cannot be all there is to it. Because it cannot logically be self-manifesting.

We do not know what impetus determined the possibilities and limitations that enabled the existential event that we experience to occur. But we can logically surmise that some unknown impetus "pre-existed". And that is a mystery that extends beyond our comprehension.

 

[Zwing]

That existence as we experience it cannot logically be responsible for manifesting itself.

What do you mean by “manifesting”? Do you mean “originating” ; by “manifesting itself” do you mean “originating randomly from a state of energic chaos”? If so, I think you would be right, even while your thesis is wrong.

 

[Zwing]

I am referring to none other than the dimension of mind. Where mind expands outwardly from brain and becomes non-localized.

The mind is no more than an illusion resulting from brain activity. It is not physical, and so cannot expand or contract.

By gaining extrasensory perception or the sixth sense it allows one to "meet God half way".

Alas, I think that God will have to come all the way to me, if he wishes to meet me.